After
a long battle against glyphosate in Europe, which results in a half-failure,
and is postponed to 5 years later, for a possible future renewal,
anti-pesticide and especially anti-GMO movements found in the dicamba a new
battle horse.

Conveniently,
the renewal of the authorization of this herbicide arrives on December 31,
2018. A perfect deadline for militants already heated with glyphosate, scalded
by a badly accepted decision, and ready to leave in tight ranks for a new
crusade.

So
we see an incalculable amount of collateral problems due to dicamba, as if the
use of this herbicide (whose volatility has always been known) over the past 30
years had never caused any problems. All of a sudden these problems, hitherto
unknown to the public, become unsustainable.

So,
what should we think of all this? Is there a reality behind?

Probably,
but also probably much less than its actual gravity, and especially its
relative gravity, in comparison with what existed before, or in comparison with
the gravity of other existing problems.

Molière,
French famous theater writer, adapting a former saying of the 13th century
wrote in 1672, who wants to drown his
dog, accuses it of having rabies.

This
is very clearly the current situation of the incessant attacks against Monsanto
and, in general, against anything that may have a direct or indirect
relationship with GMOs.

Is there a
scientific consensus on GMOs? Hard to say. Studies that must be challenged come
from work done or financed by the powerful pro-GMO lobby, or on the contrary by
the powerful anti-GMO lobby. One can safely dismiss all these works whose
honesty must be questioned. A study that includes this work can’t lead to a
consensus.

It made me
wonder, after all these preliminary reflections, what would have happened if
the development of GMOs had been different:

Using a
technique invented in 1973, the first large-scale commercial development of GMO
technology is done by the American company Monsanto, for seeds of crops
resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, itself being, at that time, an
exclusivity of Monsanto.

On the
aspect of the development of the company, it's not only very coherent, but even
very astute.

Except
that it was not counting, on the first hand, on the negligence of some farmers
who began to abuse glyphosate, with consequences on the environment, the
quality of soils, the quality of waters, and the health of the local residents,
and on the other hand, on the growing concern of consumer associations, which
has gradually turned into a crusade against pesticides.

But to
allow, with no safeguards, to any not necessarily scrupulous farmer to apply a
herbicide directly on the crop, and even on the edible part of the crop is at
least risky.

At the
beginning of the GMO technology, an ethics commission, as it exists for
medicine, was missing, in order to limit risks of abuse.

Because
finally, let's be clear.

Let's
imagine that the first commercial GMOs were for example:

-Crops
enriched with nutrients, as is the case of golden rice, likely to prevent
blindness of 2 million children per year, at least 250,000 of whom will die
because of the severity of their vitamin-A deficiency,

-Or
drought-resistant crops, as is the case, for example, with certain varieties of
sorghum adapted to the Sahelian climate, or rice that doesn't need any flood
phase, allowing it to be cultivated in many regions,

-Or
crops resistant to insect attack, both to reduce the use of pesticides, while
increasing the average production by reducing damage, resulting in a reduced
risk of famine in the poorest areas.

Do you
really believe that this systematic opposition would have developed?

Don't you
think that this rejection of Monsanto is more like a rejection of dehumanized
capitalism, rather than a real rejection of a problem the real foundations of
which probably more than half activists ignore?

Don't you
think that if GMOs had been developed from the outset in a humanist spirit, the
debate would probably never have existed?

I'm
convinced that the organizations that are currently the most virulent, in
particular Greenpeace, have found in GMOs, a great way to attract affiliates,
provoke donations, generate income, gain power.

But in the
meantime, millions of children continue to die while the solution exists, but
it's blocked by Greenpeace.

Watch this
petition, launched on Avaaz, two and a half years ago. It has barely exceeded
1000 signatures in this time. Yet it is about saving thousands of children.

The
brainwashing has worked so well that it's better to let these children die
(they are far away, poor, we don't see them and we don't hear them, it's true),
rather than calling into question a lie.

No one disputes the opinions of
Greenpeace. They are necessarily right.

It's Greenpeace, come on!

If there is
one thing that I consider Monsanto could be accused of, it's to have killed the
GMO technology, with which it claimed to become rich and powerful, out of pure
economic interest.

This is the
epitome of wild, dehumanized capitalism.

And just as
I consider that Greenpeace should be accused of a crime against humanity for
blocking the authorization of golden rice, Monsanto should also be accused of a
crime against humanity for killing GMO technology, and all the benefits that it
could have brought to humanity.

Because if
Monsanto had not sought to get rich on GMO technology, and Greenpeace had not
decided this total blocking, we would have GM crops around the world, which
would allow us to produce with much less pesticides, and much less food loss,
most dry lands would have become agricultural areas again, allowing their own
people to live there avoiding famine, and malnutrition problems would be
disappearing.

In short, we
would have a much more sustainable agriculture, more respectful of the
environment, the most vulnerable people would have access to food from their
own production, and organic farming would have progressed much more because it
would finally have found the technical means to do it (GMOs would most likely
be allowed in organic farming, since they would produce more, better, with no
negative impact on the environment or the consumer).